I thought I would start this thread because an ice age relates to a global flood and scientists, wanting big funds from the govt., are using scare tactics to make people believe that global warming is going to destroy the world if we don't pay them billions of dollars to fix it.

It's a fact that there are frozen trees and vegetation in the arctic circle that could not have grown in the ice, and when the glaciers in the Alps receded, Roman silver mines and trade routes were found underneath.

Here is a recent paper from the journal nature that verifies that the earth is cooling since Roman times.

There are many activists pushing for 100% renewable power in Australia, their main argument for doing so is global warming does this mean their campaign is invalid?

Additionally this would render our recent "carbon tax" an absolute fraud. Though many already knew this, since making people pay more $$$ doesn't stop the CO2, even more so for a business or industry in which it will cost too much to convert to a cleaner method, why pay a billion dollars to update when the tax is only a fraction of that. Like all things in the end the consumer pays, electricity prices here are going through the roof and one excuse the companies can give is the carbon tax. (Additionally It also doesn't stop the emissions from the rest of the world)

Yes, Gilbo. They are intentionally fudging the data to profit from it. Climatgate even revealed email transactions between some scientists involved saying that they better not include a cooling trend in their report.

Yes, Gilbo. They are intentionally fudging the data to profit from it. Climatgate even revealed email transactions between some scientists involved saying that they better not include a cooling trend in their report.

Really! Well I must admit that the advocacy action was quite recent and I had a hand in helping out. We were told that the science behind it was a sure thing, though initially I had my doubts as I had heard elsewhere that it wasn't. I guess I wouldn't have done it if I had known the actual facts, though I think that most of the people there were just as misled as I was, (its a constant thing I find with many activists, they only want to look / think about what they want to).

Though Wikipedia claims

"Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming."

It pretty much paints the science of global warming as a sure thing, though wikipedia is never to be relied upon. May I ask you for a website with journals that go against the current global warming hype? That way I can study the data myself

Thanks guys... This is starting to infuriate me now since I was suckered into believing in global warming and subsequently went on to sucker in other people... I just don't understand why people can't look at the data critically despite their own opinions and change their opinions according to the data at hand.

Thanks guys... This is starting to infuriate me now since I was suckered into believing in global warming and subsequently went on to sucker in other people... I just don't understand why people can't look at the data critically despite their own opinions and change their opinions according to the data at hand.

That's right. And I remember how the 'Earth Day 1970' promoters were preaching so hard about another coming Ice Age that threatened the world. But over the years that whole idea somehow got 'fip flopped'.

Proof: "At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." (Walter Williams in Townhall.com http://townhall.com/...ions/page/full/)

That's right. And I remember how the 'Earth Day 1970' promoters were preaching so hard about another coming Ice Age that threatened the world. But over the years that whole idea somehow got 'fip flopped'.

Proof: "At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." (Walter Williams in Townhall.com http://townhall.com/...ions/page/full/)

Wow really? It's all fear mongering. The result of global warming fear has been over-regulation that stunts the growth of new businesses and plunges the economy in the toilet...

Wow really? It's all fear mongering. The result of global warming fear has been over-regulation that stunts the growth of new businesses and plunges the economy in the toilet...

Totally agree!

The Australian Government initiated a "Carbon Tax" and that has seen electricity prices soar as well as increase the costs of services across most sectors, we did get $800 "bribe" money but how much help is a lump sum compared to constant increases to faily living?

I put a post on the climate change volunteers group on facebook that I am a part of asking them to explain the conflict with the data. I've stated that I'm only interested in the facts rather than supporting ones own political beliefs. I'll keep you guys posted on what happens. (Also sent a PM to one of the head guys I know and didn't get a response at all.... )

In case anyone wants to know where the 98% consensus of global warming came from, I found it in a recent article.

"The researchers, Doran and Zimmerman, deliberately excluded the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers who might have thought that the sun and planetary movements might have something to do with Earth’s climate.

They also decided that neither academic qualifications nor scientific accomplishment would be a factor in whose responses could be accepted -- about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a Ph.D, and some didn’t even have a master’s degree. They reduced the list to 3,146 who responded to these two questions:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Ninety percent of the respondents answered "risen" to the first question, presumably assuming it referred to the pre-1850 Little Ice Age. Eighty two percent of the respondents answered "yes" to the second question.

Those percentages weren’t impressive enough for the researchers, so they further reduced the sample until only 77 remained. Seventy five of the select 77 said "yes" to both questions, producing the desired "consensus" finding that "97 percent of active climate researchers" believe that humans are a significant cause of global warming. Those human activities, incidentally, include land use changes as well as greenhouse gas emissions."

I thought I would start this thread because an ice age relates to a global flood and scientists, wanting big funds from the govt., are using scare tactics to make people believe that global warming is going to destroy the world if we don't pay them billions of dollars to fix it.

It's a fact that there are frozen trees and vegetation in the arctic circle that could not have grown in the ice, and when the glaciers in the Alps receded, Roman silver mines and trade routes were found underneath.

Here is a recent paper from the journal nature that verifies that the earth is cooling since Roman times.

My understanding is that when antarctica broke off from south america it disrupted the flow of warm water down the antarctic coast which passed through the widening gap between the two continents causing antarctica (then sub-tropical) to get increasingly colder. This is local weather and has nothing to do with global warming which is about how much heat is absorbed by the planet per year, not how that heat is redistributed which causes local weather to be hot or cold.

My understanding is that when antarctica broke off from south america it disrupted the flow of warm water down the antarctic coast which passed through the widening gap between the two continents causing antarctica (then sub-tropical) to get increasingly colder. This is local weather and has nothing to do with global warming which is about how much heat is absorbed by the planet per year, not how that heat is redistributed which causes local weather to be hot or cold.